His rantings could be interpreted to be an act of retribution. He wasn't making a specific threat or promise that every would be subject to something similar until the British stopped killing his med. He wasn't working with anyone to carry out goals (that we know of). Effectively, the threat ended with him. Either he had no goal or the murder was the goal.

You could not possibly be any more wrong.

FTFA - ... He added: "I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you."

Reading. How does it work?

/lennavan is correct.//you are too far derp.

A flimsy threat does not constitute a plan. Even if you close your eyes and pray. Even if you beg. A threat, especially one that effectively ends with the attackers, is not a plan. Therefore their actions aren't being used as part of a plan to achieve a political goal.

olithon20:As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

So a couple of complete nutters killed a poor guy and were stupid enough to hang around ranting and raving about it until they got taken down by the police. It's a shame, but it happens. Crazy is crazy, whatever flavour it comes in. They'll be punished in due course, and my deepest sympathies to the family, but otherwise, it's just one of those things. The media seem to be getting rather too excitable about it all, simply due to the supposed terrorism angle.

If there is a sudden rash of attacks, on military personnel or otherwise, I might be somewhat concerned, but otherwise, hey, crazy is crazy.

olithon20:lennavan: olithon20: As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

Terrorism is a word. Words have meaning. The word terrorism has a meaning.ter·ror·ism[ter-uh-riz-uh] Show IPA noun1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

We agree this was violence, right? Good, that's half of the definition right there. Now what was the purpose of this violence?

Ok, so perhaps I was a little vague in my response. For which I apologise.

I will concede that this act would likely fit the bill for the definition of 'terrorism'. At the end of the day, any violent act committed could probably be argued to be an act of terrorism. And I wouldn't doubt that the people involved felt some form of ideological motivation to commit this act.

However, I don't really feel like this is much more than some act of some rather troubled people. I don't see this (and I really hope that I am correct) as some big Terrorist plot, but simply some very angry men committing a violent, isolated act. Sadly, this sort of thing happens. Sometimes it's due to a misguided religious fervor, sometimes it's because the voices in thier head told them so. Sometimes both.

Again, while I deplore the act committed here today, I don't think it's worth getting too concerned over in the long term, unless it turns out to be some part of a greater plan, which right now I feel is unlikely.

Bontesla:lennavan: Bontesla: Murdering the cadet was the goal - and he justified that goal politically.

If murder was the sole goal, then why did he stick around and seek out cameras to make a statement?

Bontesla: But how is this attack being used as leverage to prevent the British soldiers from killing his people?

You don't understand how the threat of beheading random citizens in the streets until British soldiers stop killing his people counts as leverage?

I can't help you dude. You're too far derp.

Why did he stick around? Some people like to explain their motivation. Some people like a grand exit. Some people are nutters. I never argued that he was a man without reasons - merely that his reasons don't quite fit terrorism.

I understand the point that you're trying to make: he committed an act that creates fear and that act was motivated by a political reason therefore he committed the act in an attempt to achieve his political goal.

His rantings could be interpreted to be an act of retribution. He wasn't making a specific threat or promise that every would be subject to something similar until the British stopped killing his med. He wasn't working with anyone to carry out goals (that we know of). Effectively, the threat ended with him. Either he had no goal or the murder was the goal.

jst3p:dforkus: This is Islam religion. This is what Islam religion is.

yah, how many Quakers flew airplanes into the World Trade Center.

Yes yes, all religions have their share of whackos, from the WBC, to the nutbag that killed George tiller, but Islam's problem with people doing horrible antisocial acts in its name is especially pernicious.

Father_Jack:JabbaTheButt: Wake up. As this murderer said, Islam is at war with the West.

if i, as a californian, cut the head off a texan, and proclaim a californihad against the texas infidel, does that make it true?

if it happens again, and again, and again, and again, and all we hear from the Calfornian government is mealy mouthed half assed appolgies, interlaced with a littnanny of gripes about how the poor poor Calfornians are just so victimized by those big meany Texans? if that's all that ever happens, and there is no Californian commitment to actually address the problem?

dforkus:jst3p: dforkus: This is Islam religion. This is what Islam religion is.

yah, how many Quakers flew airplanes into the World Trade Center.

Yes yes, all religions have their share of whackos, from the WBC, to the nutbag that killed George tiller, but Islam's problem with people doing horrible antisocial acts in its name is especially pernicious.

tis true they have a serious branding problem, and there are a lot of nutbags committing crime in the name of their religion. we in the west dont need to kill in the name of christ any more, we have other causes and legitimize our violence through state-run militaries. if these guys had access to the same tools, i'm sure they'd do the same thing. But they dont, so they resort to this shiat, the same way we would if we were in their position.

blaming the religion is barking up the wrong tree in my opinion. its addressing a symptom and not the disease. if the states or proto-states which generate these assholes functioned, and if we as the global hegemon (the Western NATO democracies) woudl quit pursuing a foreign policy which fuels these dickwads this'd gradually improve.

This man is about to be lynched. It is because they hate black people, making it a hate crime, and to terrorize other black people.

It is both.

Sorry for the delay. I wanted to jump on the laptop to address this question.

You're painting my analogy with a bit of a broad brush. That may be my fault - trying to Fark on my phone while getting changed from work isn't particularly effective.

Scenario 1: A homophobic man slays a gay man for being gay isn't terrorism because there's no overall plan for political change and this single murder doesn't convey a plan for political change. It's a hate crime but it isn't terrorism.

Scenario 2: A homophobic man slays a gay man for being gay. While slaying the man, he says, "As long as your kind exists, my kind will exist to kill your kind." This also isn't terrorism. It's a threat and the man is using fear as leverage - but there is no plan to achieve political change. Aspirations to be rid of teh gay isn't a plan. "His kind" isn't, in and of itself, tantamount to an organization that seeks to destroy all gay people. This is a hate crime but not quite terrorism because, again, there's no plan in which this action is used to leverage political change.

Scenario 3: A homophobic man slays a gay man for being gay. While slaying the man, he says, "Society will suffer until my people purge your people from it. There's no where to run or hide. Eventually, society will hand you over on a silver platter, begging for mercy." That is terrorism.

Now, to address specifically the lynching of African Americans: there are two periods of time. In the beginning - lynching was not treated largely as a crime. As someone noted earlier - this is just a government largely committing crimes against its people. It was part of systematic oppression in which the government often supported (directly and indirectly) efforts to oppress the people. The government was a co-conspirator.

When lynching became a criminal matter (people were arrested, tried, and convicted in a meaningful way) - the argument can be made that they were acts of terrorism.

If there's a backlash and a poor muslim fellow gets lynched by right wing extremists,(You're missing a step right here) forcing brown folks to flee the country or hide inside their homes, would anyone dare call that terrorism?

dforkus:Father_Jack: JabbaTheButt: Wake up. As this murderer said, Islam is at war with the West.

if i, as a californian, cut the head off a texan, and proclaim a californihad against the texas infidel, does that make it true?if it happens again, and again, and again, and again, and all we hear from the Calfornian government is mealy mouthed half assed appolgies, interlaced with a littnanny of gripes about how the poor poor Calfornians are just so victimized by those big meany Texans? if that's all that ever happens, and there is no Californian commitment to actually address the problem?Well... Yes,,,

super_grass:A note to all the fark racists: two people do not represent more than a million followers, and it's not fair to judge an entire faith based on two people. Do McVeigh or abortion clinic bombers represent all christians? No.

The victims in the long run will of course be immigrants as racist, right-wing parties like UKIP try to use this excuse to clamp down on immigration.

JabbaTheButt:Wake up. As this murderer said, Islam is at war with the West.

The problem isn't between Islam and the West. The problem is between superstition and modernity.

The reason Islam stands out as particularly violent is that a relatively large (compared to the other religions) proportion of Muslims take their religion really seriously. When the Quran tells Muslims to kill non-believers, there are a lot of Muslims who see that as a genuine command that can't be ignored.

When the Christian Bible says, "anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death" -- Christians tend not to take that too seriously.

Regular "beat bobbies" don't carry guns unless they've been specifically called to a situation where they will need them. Firearms officers are specialists who've had advanced training, and can handle a sniper rifle if need be.

Father_Jack:dforkus: Father_Jack: JabbaTheButt: Wake up. As this murderer said, Islam is at war with the West.

if i, as a californian, cut the head off a texan, and proclaim a californihad against the texas infidel, does that make it true?if it happens again, and again, and again, and again, and all we hear from the Calfornian government is mealy mouthed half assed appolgies, interlaced with a littnanny of gripes about how the poor poor Calfornians are just so victimized by those big meany Texans? if that's all that ever happens, and there is no Californian commitment to actually address the problem?Well... Yes,,,

replace californian with NRA... still make sense?

? What in Allah's holy name are you blathering about, or is this just some kind of guilty-white-liberal word salad. I see your NRA and raise you one Michelle Bachman!

Father_Jack:dforkus: jst3p: dforkus: This is Islam religion. This is what Islam religion is.

yah, how many Quakers flew airplanes into the World Trade Center.

Yes yes, all religions have their share of whackos, from the WBC, to the nutbag that killed George tiller, but Islam's problem with people doing horrible antisocial acts in its name is especially pernicious.

tis true they have a serious branding problem, and there are a lot of nutbags committing crime in the name of their religion. we in the west dont need to kill in the name of christ any more, we have other causes and legitimize our violence through state-run militaries. if these guys had access to the same tools, i'm sure they'd do the same thing. But they dont, so they resort to this shiat, the same way we would if we were in their position.

blaming the religion is barking up the wrong tree in my opinion. its addressing a symptom and not the disease. if the states or proto-states which generate these assholes functioned, and if we as the global hegemon (the Western NATO democracies) woudl quit pursuing a foreign policy which fuels these dickwads this'd gradually improve.

Oh, I see, blaming the religion is "barking up the wrong tree", it's all our fault.

Bull farking shiat.There are a billion hindus that are just as poor as the muslim underclass, hundreds of millions in central and south america that have been royally farked over by bad Western foreign policy, but they aren't hacking up people in the US/UK to "avenge their brothers"...

Islam's got a problem, a big farking problem, and they, so far, have been so wrapped up in their perpetual state of victimhood to really do anything about it.

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick:Bontesla: lennavan: Bontesla: Murdering the cadet was the goal - and he justified that goal politically.

If murder was the sole goal, then why did he stick around and seek out cameras to make a statement?

Bontesla: But how is this attack being used as leverage to prevent the British soldiers from killing his people?

You don't understand how the threat of beheading random citizens in the streets until British soldiers stop killing his people counts as leverage?

I can't help you dude. You're too far derp.

Why did he stick around? Some people like to explain their motivation. Some people like a grand exit. Some people are nutters. I never argued that he was a man without reasons - merely that his reasons don't quite fit terrorism.

I understand the point that you're trying to make: he committed an act that creates fear and that act was motivated by a political reason therefore he committed the act in an attempt to achieve his political goal.

His rantings could be interpreted to be an act of retribution. He wasn't making a specific threat or promise that every would be subject to something similar until the British stopped killing his med. He wasn't working with anyone to carry out goals (that we know of). Effectively, the threat ended with him. Either he had no goal or the murder was the goal.

Is your back sore from moving those heavy-ass goalposts?

Where did I move goalposts? I've argued from the very beginning that terrorism requires the use of fear as leverage in order to achieve a (political goal). I maintain that.

Implicit in using fear as leverage in order to achieve a political goal is some sort of plan.

If you and your buddy are the plan and it doesn't go beyond being a nutter attacking someone for "Allah" - that doesn't quite fit the bill.

If there's a backlash and a poor muslim fellow gets lynched by right wing extremists,(You're missing a step right here) forcing brown folks to flee the country or hide inside their homes, would anyone dare call that terrorism?

If there's a backlash and a poor muslim fellow gets lynched by right wing extremists,(You're missing a step right here) forcing brown folks to flee the country or hide inside their homes, would anyone dare call that terrorism?

Ok, so poor muslim fellowS?

How about we worry about what to call that when it actually happens, or is that where we are now, pre-emptive outrage a "right wing lynchings" that haven't even happened yet.

PartTimeBuddha:Bontesla: Implicit in using fear as leverage in order to achieve a political goal is some sort of plan.

This is the problem I'm having with it. Where is the fear? What am I meant to be afraid of?

I'm not sure. The threat has been neutralized. There doesn't seem to be a plan to carry out this threat of retribution by other actors. Somehow this is terrorism because "Allah" was mentioned. I guess.

What do I know - I've only specialized in the study of it in university.

dforkus:Father_Jack: dforkus: Father_Jack: JabbaTheButt: Wake up. As this murderer said, Islam is at war with the West.Oh, I see, blaming the religion is "barking up the wrong tree", it's all our fault.

Bull farking shiat.There are a billion hindus that are just as poor as the muslim underclass, hundreds of millions in central and south america that have been royally farked over by bad Western foreign policy, but they aren't hacking up people in the US/UK to "avenge their brothers"...

Islam's got a problem, a big farking problem, and they, so far, have been so wrapped up in their perpetual state of victimhood to really do anything about it.

where did i say its all our fault?

i'm just sayin' there is not a causal relationship between islam and terrorism. if there were, then the turks the indonesians, the malaysians etc would be doing the same thing. and they're not; they have successful states and are making money etc.

there's a problem, a big farking problem, with the middle east in general, and asserting the whole thing is because of muslim victimhood will lead you to conclusions that will be at best unhelpful.

and apologies for the nra comment; i'm in a meeting and didnt really get to write anything other than a trollish one liner. but your thoughts above in response to my californian/texas analogy reminded me of how the NRA reacts to gun violence/gun control.

PartTimeBuddha:Bontesla: Implicit in using fear as leverage in order to achieve a political goal is some sort of plan.

This is the problem I'm having with it. Where is the fear? What am I meant to be afraid of?

Is terrorism still terrorism if citizens become accustomed and desensitized? Anyway,a terrorist is pretty hard to define, and that's perhaps why most governments can use the term whenever it suits them by using labels like Al qaeda "associated forces".

super_grass:A note to all the fark racists: two people do not represent more than a million followers, and it's not fair to judge an entire faith based on two people. Do McVeigh or abortion clinic bombers represent all christians? No.

The victims in the long run will of course be immigrants as racist, right-wing parties like UKIP try to use this excuse to clamp down on immigration.

It sounds like you've been smoking some super_grass for too long. Give the few remaining brain cells a break, brah!

Frankly I'm surprised that the Obama media lapdogs didn't cover this up until after immigration "reform." First for everything I guess...

There's a surefire way to stop these kinds of attacks, but nobody has the balls to farking say it:

Stop immigration from Muslim countries. All of it. If they can't get in your country, they can't kill your people on the streets. If a segment of foreign Muslims, even a small segment, consider all Muslims to be the enemies of the West, and see all Westerners as valid targets, the only logical thing to do is stop foreign Muslims from entering the country.

fark, it's a better solution than bombing the hell out of their homelands in retaliation.

Headline says machete, article says cleaver at one point, ax further down, and the photo shows him with a knife. There is also mention of a pistol. I just want to know wtf he was assaulted with. It sucks regardless but come on, did they just have every type of blade or what? Surely I misunderstood something.

Need_MindBleach:Father_Jack: JabbaTheButt: Wake up. As this murderer said, Islam is at war with the West.

if i, as a californian, cut the head off a texan, and proclaim a californihad against the texas infidel, does that make it true?

Depends. Have Californians been killing Texans by the hundreds or thousands as part of their Californihad?

If so, I would say yes.

well, i would say no.

Being at war means very specific things with certain responses and actions which are legalized and sanctioned by state actors, and implies a certain course of action (war back with a military).

when you're talking about a problem that isnt war, but has warlike symptoms (say for example, large amounts of extrajudicial violence), and you respond with war, you often exacerbate the issues which've caused the violence and make things worse.

take a gang war for example, which fits our analogy of CA and TX. If the Crips and Bluds in Los Angeles are killing one another in the hundreds, and the US military "declares war on gang violence" and goes into s. central and attacks the gangs as an insurgency, destroys LA's infrastructure in the process and kills countless of its own citizens in the process, destabilizes the whole region, creates a massive refugee problem, causes the local economy to collapse and creates conditions of such misery that future generations of Angelinos will be raised in squalor... this isnt an effective strategy of fighting gang violence. "Declaring War" is not the right response. There is a military component to protecting ourselves from terrorism, sure, but its not strictly a military problem and wont be solved by only military means

soooooo... as such, i dislike the term "war on islam" or even "war on the west". It makes us think in terms that are not clear.